Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Daya Sapra on 5 May, 2009
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009)
13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183
(2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance
of probabilities.
Subhra Mukherjee & Anr. C vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors on 8 March, 2000
14. The PWs deposed regarding the case and their testimony remained un
impeached /uncontroverted and therefore there is no reason to disbelieve the
testimony of PWs. In the present case, there is no denial of the claim of the
plaintiffs by the defendants. In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings,
it has been proved that the plaintiffs are the coowner of the suit property. The
plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and possession as prayed in the
suit. As held in Subhra Mukharjee Vs. Bharat Coking Ltd., AIR 2000 SC
1203, the party which makes the allegation must prove it. The defendants
have failed to prove contrary to the case of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are
accordingly entitled for the decree of partition, possession and permanent
injunction as prayed for in the suit.
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Shri Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. vs Mrs. Jagjit Chawla & Others on 6 September, 2011
In the cases of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009)
13 SCC 729 and Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183
(2011) DLT 418, it has been held that a civil case is to be decided on balance
of probabilities.
1